Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Weiqi Zhai, Zhihai Wang, Jinghang Wang, Boyu Yang, Xiaogang Li, Xander Xu, Bohan Wang, Peng Wang, Xingzhe Wu, Anfeng Li, Qiyuan Feng, Yuhao Zhou, Shoulin Han, Wenjie Luo, Yiyuan Li, Yaxuan Wang, Ruixian Luo, Guojie Lin, Peiyao Xiao, Chengliang Xu, Ben Wang, Zeyu Wang, Zichao Chen, Jianan Ye, Yijie Hu, Jialong Chen, Zongwen Shen, Yuliang Xu, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, Hu Wei, Que Shen, Bing Zhao · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

High trust

Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.

Best use

Primary protocol reference for eval design

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

High

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 668 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,143 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/skylenage/HLE-Verified

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has strong direct human-feedback and evaluation protocol signal and is suitable as a primary eval pipeline reference.

Best use

Primary protocol reference for eval design

Use if you need

A concrete protocol example with enough signal to inform rater workflow design.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

High

Usefulness score

75/100 • High

Use this as a primary source when designing or comparing eval protocols.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

High-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 90%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Expert Verification, Critique Edit

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions."

Quality Controls

strong

Adjudication

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,143 revised-and-certified items."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

HLE

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We evaluate eight state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 668 verified items."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Expert Verification, Critique Edit
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Adjudication
  • Evidence quality: High
  • Use this page as: Primary protocol reference for eval design

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

HLE

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions.
  • However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons.
  • To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions.
  • To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.
  • We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions.
  • However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Expert Verification, Critique Edit

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Pass: Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Adjudication

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: HLE

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.